Re: [buildd] Vivaldi & Elgar sbuild ready, Arrakis next
Wouter Verhelst dixit:
>> What about those where I have patches
>> in unreleased?
>
>Eh. If they're built and uploaded, they *should* show as "installed". If
>they're not built yet, just take them for building, so no buildd tries
>to build them.
Hum. These where my upload to unreleased is indeed newer than
the last upload show up as installed, the others as needs-build.
>> Looks like --no-build is for them?
>
>No, that means we don't ever want to build them, and isn't reset after a
>new upload.
But isn’t that precisely what I want? I want to mark a package
as “do not autobuild it, even if a newer version is uploaded,
until I tell you otherwise” (i.e. until I verified that the
patches we require are part of it).
>Please don't use that except for packages that are
>architecture-specific to other architectures.
Isn’t this sort of a similar situation?
Take src:gcc-4.6 – if Doko uploads a new version of it right
now, and a buildd takes it, it will build and upload and install
successfully, but lead to problems. I think just taking it (in
an older version) for building will not prevent that.
I expect these cases to be rare, mostly only occur during a
pre-release freeze, and become less and less over time, but
fact is, we have them right now, and while (for example)
qt4-x11 will just fail to build, others (gcc, eglibc) will
build but lack required bugfixes, and marking them as no-
build will prevent that better than me having an eye on
debian-devel-changes *all the time* (especially when I’m
sleeping, or offline) and claiming newer uploads…
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I want one of these. They cost 720 € though… good they don’t have the HD hole,
which indicates 3½″ floppies with double capacity… still. A tad too much, atm.
‣ http://www.floppytable.com/floppytable-images-1.html
Reply to: